You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> on 2005/12/09 00:30:58 UTC
Does there need to be a default web container?
This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user
community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the
other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and
we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind
one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither
selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end
user choose?
IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice
without hinting a preference.
Thoughts and comments?
Jeff
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Greg,
Thanks for taking care of the wiki entries. It looks great.
Jeff
Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> I've updated the FAQ with an entry that I think helps explain the
> duality.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/FrequentlyAskedQuestions
>
> Jeff (and others) can you check that this is a fair description.
> I've also started work on the general jetty in geronimo documentation
> to get it up to the standard that Jeff has for tomcat.
>
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> There is no doubt that someone's feelings are going to get hurt,
>> whether it's Greg's or mine, as we both stepped up and delivered our
>> products and got them certified. But at the end of the day...what
>> counts is we offer both and that is most important.
>
> +1.
> So long as all our efforts are acknowledge and no disrespect is shown, we
> should be able to do this without hurt feelings. Healthy competition
> between the containers will only improve them both and so long as
> we don't involve our users in container-wars then it should be good
> for all.
>
>
>> I may choose to disagree at the level of activity of Tomcat vs Jetty
>> in Geronimo over the last year, and could very well be proven wrong by
>> empirical evidence...but yes my nose has been knee deep in Tomcat, so
>> its likely my views may be jaded.
>
> It is true that we have been moderately quiet on Geronimo lists themselves,
> but we have been working on Jetty 6, which has largely been motivated by
> creating a container that is even more suited to being embedded in Geronimo
> with improved support of G- threadpools, interceptors etc.
>
>
> cheers
>
>
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
Guys,
I've updated the FAQ with an entry that I think helps explain the
duality.
http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/FrequentlyAskedQuestions
Jeff (and others) can you check that this is a fair description.
I've also started work on the general jetty in geronimo documentation
to get it up to the standard that Jeff has for tomcat.
Jeff Genender wrote:
> There is no doubt that someone's feelings are going to get hurt, whether
> it's Greg's or mine, as we both stepped up and delivered our products
> and got them certified. But at the end of the day...what counts is we
> offer both and that is most important.
+1.
So long as all our efforts are acknowledge and no disrespect is shown, we
should be able to do this without hurt feelings. Healthy competition
between the containers will only improve them both and so long as
we don't involve our users in container-wars then it should be good
for all.
> I may choose to disagree at the level of activity of Tomcat vs Jetty in
> Geronimo over the last year, and could very well be proven wrong by
> empirical evidence...but yes my nose has been knee deep in Tomcat, so
> its likely my views may be jaded.
It is true that we have been moderately quiet on Geronimo lists themselves,
but we have been working on Jetty 6, which has largely been motivated by
creating a container that is even more suited to being embedded in Geronimo
with improved support of G- threadpools, interceptors etc.
cheers
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
IMHO, its over and set in stone. I would have liked that we examined
what the community wanted and tallied the vote based on our user base,
but unfortunately this is not my decision.
Vote count:
Jetty Tomcat
------- --------
Geronimo Committers 12 4
Users 6 11
------- --------
18 15
I may choose to disagree at the level of activity of Tomcat vs Jetty in
Geronimo over the last year, and could very well be proven wrong by
empirical evidence...but yes my nose has been knee deep in Tomcat, so
its likely my views may be jaded.
There is no doubt that someone's feelings are going to get hurt, whether
it's Greg's or mine, as we both stepped up and delivered our products
and got them certified. But at the end of the day...what counts is we
offer both and that is most important.
Jeff
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> My Magic G-Ball comment aside I'll throw my 2c into the debate. First,
> the decision we make today is not binding for all time. Also, I
> appreciate Joe's comment about simplicity but the reality is J2EE has a
> steep learning curve and as much as I would like to see Joe's mom
> download the server and get cracking I doubt she has much use for a J2EE
> server to post recipes or pictures of her grandchildren on the web. PHP
> or Ruby would be easier I think :)
>
> I appreciate that Tomcat is an Apache Foundation project and we want to
> taker that into consideration. Since my involvement in the project
> though I think the Jetty team has been more actively involved in
> Geronimo in terms of responding to questions and making changes. Jeff
> has been doing a great job at making sure Tomcat is a first class
> citizen as well. I may be wrong but the Jetty community seems to be
> more active in G.
>
> That said, I suggest we put some text in the installer that gives some
> context to why a customer would want to choose one over the other.
> Indicate that Geronimo works equally well with either WebContainer and
> that what we are providing is a choice for them to meet their specific
> needs. I would prefer to have a default checked and lean toward Jetty.
>
> Regardless of which one is chosen I think the Installer should have some
> text to guide the user to making a decision and we should be clear about
> the Openness of Geronimo in allowing choice, providing information to
> make a decision and provide a default so Joe's mom can get cracking.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> Panagiotis Astithas wrote:
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to
>>>> have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when
>>>> they first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install
>>>> anything on her computer unless she can click, click, click and get
>>>> it working. I know our users are more sophisticated than her ...
>>>> but we want to make it as easy as possibly to get something working
>>>> quickly. We want to make this easy enough for my mom to install
>>>> (even though she never will). :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
>>> container is?
>>
>>
>> I think this is the root of your miscommunication/disagreement: the
>> decision to choose a web container has to stem not only from an
>> understanding of what a web container is, but also from an evaluation
>> of the relative merits of both. That is, Joe User may know from
>> Servlets 101 what a web container provides, but he may not be aware of
>> what this choice entails. Of course such worries could be mitigated by
>> a blurb in this particular installer page that mentions that both are
>> OK, etc.
>>
>> In the end, I think that not having a default choice (whatever that
>> may be) is a rather loud acknowledgment of a fear to have the debate
>> and make a choice :-)
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Panagiotis
>>
>>
>>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
My Magic G-Ball comment aside I'll throw my 2c into the debate. First, the
decision we make today is not binding for all time. Also, I appreciate Joe's
comment about simplicity but the reality is J2EE has a steep learning curve and
as much as I would like to see Joe's mom download the server and get cracking I
doubt she has much use for a J2EE server to post recipes or pictures of her
grandchildren on the web. PHP or Ruby would be easier I think :)
I appreciate that Tomcat is an Apache Foundation project and we want to taker
that into consideration. Since my involvement in the project though I think the
Jetty team has been more actively involved in Geronimo in terms of responding to
questions and making changes. Jeff has been doing a great job at making sure
Tomcat is a first class citizen as well. I may be wrong but the Jetty community
seems to be more active in G.
That said, I suggest we put some text in the installer that gives some context
to why a customer would want to choose one over the other. Indicate that
Geronimo works equally well with either WebContainer and that what we are
providing is a choice for them to meet their specific needs. I would prefer to
have a default checked and lean toward Jetty.
Regardless of which one is chosen I think the Installer should have some text to
guide the user to making a decision and we should be clear about the Openness of
Geronimo in allowing choice, providing information to make a decision and
provide a default so Joe's mom can get cracking.
Matt
Panagiotis Astithas wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to
>>> have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they
>>> first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on
>>> her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working.
>>> I know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to
>>> make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We
>>> want to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she
>>> never will). :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
>> container is?
>
>
> I think this is the root of your miscommunication/disagreement: the
> decision to choose a web container has to stem not only from an
> understanding of what a web container is, but also from an evaluation of
> the relative merits of both. That is, Joe User may know from Servlets
> 101 what a web container provides, but he may not be aware of what this
> choice entails. Of course such worries could be mitigated by a blurb in
> this particular installer page that mentions that both are OK, etc.
>
> In the end, I think that not having a default choice (whatever that may
> be) is a rather loud acknowledgment of a fear to have the debate and
> make a choice :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Panagiotis
>
>
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Panagiotis Astithas <pa...@ebs.gr>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to
>> have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they
>> first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on
>> her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I
>> know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to
>> make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want
>> to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never
>> will). :-)
>
>
> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
> container is?
I think this is the root of your miscommunication/disagreement: the
decision to choose a web container has to stem not only from an
understanding of what a web container is, but also from an evaluation of
the relative merits of both. That is, Joe User may know from Servlets
101 what a web container provides, but he may not be aware of what this
choice entails. Of course such worries could be mitigated by a blurb in
this particular installer page that mentions that both are OK, etc.
In the end, I think that not having a default choice (whatever that may
be) is a rather loud acknowledgment of a fear to have the debate and
make a choice :-)
Cheers,
Panagiotis
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Then lets agree to disagree. We should probably take this offline if it
needs to be discussed further. This is kind of off-topic.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should
> use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer.
> About the best I could say is "they both work fine in Geronimo, they
> do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the
> Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much
> built the Tomcat integration on our own." Still, that doesn't give
> you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally
> would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most*
> informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users.
>
> I don't think it's sensible to argue over what "average" people know
> or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear
> decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever
> installs the product to make that same decision.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Erin Mulder wrote:
>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
>>>> container is?
>>> It's possible.
>> I asked "average" user...not whether its possible. The average user
>> will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on
>> the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use
>> BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is.
>>
>> The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with
>> equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its
>> ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards.
>>
>>> There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only
>>> ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web
>>> containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service
>>> implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize
>>> the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their
>>> install experience.
>> I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many
>> "experienced" *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container
>> is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very
>> few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable
>> users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and
>> what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should
>> have a minimal understanding of web containers.
>>
>>> Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both
>>> classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server
>>> before they get around to learning what a web container is.
>> The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of
>> users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the
>> overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards
>> what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to
>> them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community
>> decide.
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should
use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer.
About the best I could say is "they both work fine in Geronimo, they
do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the
Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much
built the Tomcat integration on our own." Still, that doesn't give
you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally
would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most*
informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users.
I don't think it's sensible to argue over what "average" people know
or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear
decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever
installs the product to make that same decision.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Erin Mulder wrote:
> > Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
> >> container is?
> >
> > It's possible.
>
> I asked "average" user...not whether its possible. The average user
> will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on
> the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use
> BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is.
>
> The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with
> equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its
> ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards.
>
> >
> > There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only
> > ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web
> > containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service
> > implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize
> > the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their
> > install experience.
>
> I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many
> "experienced" *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container
> is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very
> few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable
> users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and
> what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should
> have a minimal understanding of web containers.
>
> >
> > Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both
> > classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server
> > before they get around to learning what a web container is.
>
> The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of
> users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the
> overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards
> what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to
> them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community
> decide.
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Erin
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Erin Mulder wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
>> container is?
>
> It's possible.
I asked "average" user...not whether its possible. The average user
will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on
the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use
BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is.
The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with
equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its
ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed towards.
>
> There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only
> ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web
> containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service
> implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize
> the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their
> install experience.
I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many
"experienced" *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container
is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very
few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable
users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and
what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should
have a minimal understanding of web containers.
>
> Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both
> classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server
> before they get around to learning what a web container is.
The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of
users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the
overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards
what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to
them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community
decide.
>
> Cheers,
> Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Thats a great idea...
Kinda like Google's "I'm feeling lucky" ;-)
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> 03@apache.org> <74...@mail.gmail.com> <43...@apache.org>
> In-Reply-To: <43...@apache.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
> X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As matt@hogstrom.org
> X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
>
> I think the magic G-ball should be embedded in the installer and let it make a
> random choice for the user :)
>
> The answer is "It is decidedly so."
>
> Matt
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> Then lets agree to disagree. We should probably take this offline if it
>> needs to be discussed further. This is kind of off-topic.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should
>>> use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer.
>>> About the best I could say is "they both work fine in Geronimo, they
>>> do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the
>>> Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much
>>> built the Tomcat integration on our own." Still, that doesn't give
>>> you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally
>>> would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most*
>>> informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's sensible to argue over what "average" people know
>>> or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear
>>> decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever
>>> installs the product to make that same decision.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Erin Mulder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
>>>>>> container is?
>>>>> It's possible.
>>>> I asked "average" user...not whether its possible. The average user
>>>> will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on
>>>> the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use
>>>> BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is.
>>>>
>>>> The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with
>>>> equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its
>>>> ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed
>>>> towards.
>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only
>>>>> ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two
>>>>> web
>>>>> containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service
>>>>> implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize
>>>>> the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their
>>>>> install experience.
>>>> I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many
>>>> "experienced" *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container
>>>> is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very
>>>> few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable
>>>> users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and
>>>> what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should
>>>> have a minimal understanding of web containers.
>>>>
>>>>> Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both
>>>>> classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server
>>>>> before they get around to learning what a web container is.
>>>> The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of
>>>> users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the
>>>> overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards
>>>> what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to
>>>> them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community
>>>> decide.
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Erin
>>
>>
>>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
03@apache.org> <74...@mail.gmail.com> <43...@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <43...@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As matt@hogstrom.org
X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
I think the magic G-ball should be embedded in the installer and let it make a
random choice for the user :)
The answer is "It is decidedly so."
Matt
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Then lets agree to disagree. We should probably take this offline if it
> needs to be discussed further. This is kind of off-topic.
>
> Jeff
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> Sorry Jeff, I have to disagree. If you asked me whether you should
>> use Tomcat or Jetty, I really couldn't give you an informed answer.
>> About the best I could say is "they both work fine in Geronimo, they
>> do a couple things like virtual hosting slightly differently, and the
>> Jetty team is actively involved in Geronimo whereas we pretty much
>> built the Tomcat integration on our own." Still, that doesn't give
>> you much guidance (the last bit there is the only reason I personally
>> would have any preference at all). And I feel like I'm in the *most*
>> informed 1% of all possible Geronimo users.
>>
>> I don't think it's sensible to argue over what "average" people know
>> or don't know, it's just my feeling that if I can't make a clear
>> decision for obvious reasons, then I can't ask every user who ever
>> installs the product to make that same decision.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>> On 12/8/05, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Erin Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
>>>>> container is?
>>>>
>>>> It's possible.
>>>
>>> I asked "average" user...not whether its possible. The average user
>>> will probably be a developer...who has done some degree of background on
>>> the technologies. I would hazard to guess there are few people who use
>>> BEA or Websphere and have absolutely no idea what a web container is.
>>>
>>> The developer will likely know what it is. I have a hard time with
>>> equating someone's clickety-click Mom with our average user...its
>>> ridicules, which was really what my previous response was directed
>>> towards.
>>>
>>>> There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only
>>>> ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two
>>>> web
>>>> containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service
>>>> implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize
>>>> the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their
>>>> install experience.
>>>
>>> I am sorry but I cannot agree here. I cannot believe there are many
>>> "experienced" *J2EE* developers who have no idea what a web container
>>> is. That is preposterous. Are there some? Sure - but I would say very
>>> few. However, in servlet 101...of which many of these un-knowledgable
>>> users would go, surely a mention of a web container, what it is, and
>>> what they can use (including books, articles, internet), they should
>>> have a minimal understanding of web containers.
>>>
>>>> Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both
>>>> classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server
>>>> before they get around to learning what a web container is.
>>>
>>> The academic component is such a small microcosm in the grand scheme of
>>> users, this not even a reason to think its has a major effect of the
>>> overall user-base. We should push the direction of Geronimo towards
>>> what the community wants. If the community wants Jetty, give it to
>>> them. If they want Tomcat, then let them have this. Let the community
>>> decide.
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Erin
>
>
>
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Erin Mulder <me...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
> container is?
It's possible.
There are a lot of experienced J2EE developers out there who have only
ever used full commercial stacks. Asking them to choose between two web
containers is like asking them to choose EJB, MQ and Web Service
implementations. They may pick Tomcat because they vaguely recognize
the name, but having to make that choice will add anxiety to their
install experience.
Geronimo is also likely to become popular in academic settings (both
classroom and self-study) where people will need to install the server
before they get around to learning what a web container is.
Cheers,
Erin
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
How about something like dual-boot systems. If
you don't pick a container fast enough, one will be
chosen for you! We will be giving the user the choice,
but also making a decision which will be installed by
default.
Cheers!
Anita
--- Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> > I agree with Aaron with regard to usability.
> Users don't want to have
> > to make any decisions on the first install
> (especially when they first
> > pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't
> install anything on her
> > computer unless she can click, click, click and
> get it working. I know
> > our users are more sophisticated than her ... but
> we want to make it as
> > easy as possibly to get something working quickly.
> We want to make this
> > easy enough for my mom to install (even though she
> never will). :-)
>
> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no
> idea what a web
> container is?
>
>
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >> On 12/8/05, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 - I don't think we should make the decision
> for the user.
> >>>
> >>> It would be even better if the installer in a
> "Choose Your Web
> >>> Container" page, provided a URL or link to a
> page on the Wiki that
> >>> provided information that would help them make
> an informed decision.
> >>>
> >>> See related ideas in
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that
> as a Geronimo PMC and
> >>>> user community we are not forced to have to
> show preference of one
> >>>> over the other. There is obviously some
> personal preferences on both
> >>>> sides and we are a great open source project
> because we do not have to
> >>>> get behind one *or* the other. We can get
> behind them both.
> >>>>
> >>>> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have
> a page called "Choose
> >>>> Your Web Container" and have an option for
> Jetty and Tomcat, but
> >>>> neither selected? Does there need to be a
> default? Can we just let
> >>>> the end user choose?
> >>>>
> >>>> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a
> preference for one over the
> >>>> other. I really like both. I think we should
> give the user the
> >>>> choice without hinting a preference.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts and comments?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by toby cabot <to...@caboteria.org>.
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 05:49:59PM -0700, Jeff Genender wrote:
> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
> container is?
The issue is whether they'll have enough knowledge of the pros and
cons of Jetty versus Tomcat to make an informed decision between them.
And what of the naive users that don't know or care what a web
container is?
I recognize that this is a tough decision to make, but I don't think
it's a good idea to punt it onto each user that wants to use Geronimo.
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to
>> have to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they
>> first pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on
>> her computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I
>> know our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to
>> make it as easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want
>> to make this easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never
>> will). :-)
>
>
> So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
> container is?
I think they'll know what a web container is. I just don't think that
they will initially care which web container they use the first time
they install Geronimo.
When they are ready to begin using Geronimo in earnest then they will
take the time to decide which web container they want and if necessary
the choose the non-default they can over-ride it. But for the first
install I don't think most users will care. I just think that we want
to make a good first impression by being easier to install then the user
may have expected (which I'm currently hoping can eventually be click,
click, click, done).
Joe
>
>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>> On 12/8/05, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user.
>>>>
>>>> It would be even better if the installer in a "Choose Your Web
>>>> Container" page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that
>>>> provided information that would help them make an informed decision.
>>>>
>>>> See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and
>>>>> user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one
>>>>> over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both
>>>>> sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to
>>>>> get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
>>>>> Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but
>>>>> neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let
>>>>> the end user choose?
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
>>>>> other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the
>>>>> choice without hinting a preference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts and comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Joe Bohn wrote:
> I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have
> to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first
> pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her
> computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know
> our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as
> easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this
> easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-)
So you think your average Geronimo user will have no idea what a web
container is?
>
> Joe
>
>
>> On 12/8/05, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user.
>>>
>>> It would be even better if the installer in a "Choose Your Web
>>> Container" page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that
>>> provided information that would help them make an informed decision.
>>>
>>> See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and
>>>> user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one
>>>> over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both
>>>> sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to
>>>> get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>>>>
>>>> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
>>>> Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but
>>>> neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let
>>>> the end user choose?
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
>>>> other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the
>>>> choice without hinting a preference.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts and comments?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I hate to say it, but from a usability perspective, I think we need to
> have a default. Otherwise, when installing Geronimo, the first thing
> the user has to do is make a decision that most users really have no
> basis for making. Granted a Wiki link would help, but I think we need
> to provide a "0-decision" install path where you can essentially just
> click through and something good will happen.
>
> At the end of the day, I wish we could avoid the politics, and I
> definitely don't think we need to present this as an official
> "Geronimo preference". Any documentation referenced can start out by
> saying "either one will work fine and we fully support both" (and the
> TAR/ZIP download page should say the same). Still, I would really
> prefer to have a pre-selected default on the install screen when it
> comes up.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
I agree with Aaron with regard to usability. Users don't want to have
to make any decisions on the first install (especially when they first
pick it up for evaluation). My mom doesn't install anything on her
computer unless she can click, click, click and get it working. I know
our users are more sophisticated than her ... but we want to make it as
easy as possibly to get something working quickly. We want to make this
easy enough for my mom to install (even though she never will). :-)
Joe
> On 12/8/05, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>+1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user.
>>
>>It would be even better if the installer in a "Choose Your Web
>>Container" page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that
>>provided information that would help them make an informed decision.
>>
>>See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314
>>
>>John
>>
>>Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and
>>>user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one
>>>over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both
>>>sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to
>>>get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>>>
>>>May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
>>>Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but
>>>neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let
>>>the end user choose?
>>>
>>>IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
>>>other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the
>>>choice without hinting a preference.
>>>
>>>Thoughts and comments?
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
lose." -- Jim Elliot
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I hate to say it, but from a usability perspective, I think we need to
have a default. Otherwise, when installing Geronimo, the first thing
the user has to do is make a decision that most users really have no
basis for making. Granted a Wiki link would help, but I think we need
to provide a "0-decision" install path where you can essentially just
click through and something good will happen.
At the end of the day, I wish we could avoid the politics, and I
definitely don't think we need to present this as an official
"Geronimo preference". Any documentation referenced can start out by
saying "either one will work fine and we fully support both" (and the
TAR/ZIP download page should say the same). Still, I would really
prefer to have a pre-selected default on the install screen when it
comes up.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 12/8/05, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user.
>
> It would be even better if the installer in a "Choose Your Web
> Container" page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that
> provided information that would help them make an informed decision.
>
> See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314
>
> John
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> > This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and
> > user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one
> > over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both
> > sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to
> > get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
> >
> > May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
> > Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but
> > neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let
> > the end user choose?
> >
> > IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
> > other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the
> > choice without hinting a preference.
> >
> > Thoughts and comments?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
>
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
+1 - I don't think we should make the decision for the user.
It would be even better if the installer in a "Choose Your Web
Container" page, provided a URL or link to a page on the Wiki that
provided information that would help them make an informed decision.
See related ideas in http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1314
John
Jeff Genender wrote:
> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and
> user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one
> over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both
> sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to
> get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>
> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
> Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but
> neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let
> the end user choose?
>
> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
> other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the
> choice without hinting a preference.
>
> Thoughts and comments?
>
> Jeff
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Also if one container is in some way better than another today, that may
not be the case in the future. Once we have a default, it will be hard
to change in the future. Not having a default also provides a fair
playing field for those who are contributing to the project and
encourages competition. Let the user decide.
John
Jeff Genender wrote:
> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and
> user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one
> over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both
> sides and we are a great open source project because we do not have to
> get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>
> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
> Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but
> neither selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let
> the end user choose?
>
> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
> other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the
> choice without hinting a preference.
>
> Thoughts and comments?
>
> Jeff
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
-0
As I have often said, in the long run the user should not care if they
are using jetty or tomcat and it was a mistake for us to expose
implementation detail as we have.
I have always preferred the web tier to be just called "web"
and then in future the developers will have the option to change
implementations. Just as we may change the implementation of GBeans,
CORBA, EJB, JMS or any other component.
I would say that perhaps the installer should not even offer the option
unless it is in some advanced mode. Less is more when it comes
to configuration options.
If at a later time we have a debate about technical advantages and
support issues and decide that tomcat is a better default - then that
can be changed in a future release (or we can continue to work hard to
improve Jetty to meet the requirements of the geronimo community).
regards
Jeff Genender wrote:
> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user
> community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the
> other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and
> we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind
> one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>
> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
> Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither
> selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end
> user choose?
>
> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
> other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice
> without hinting a preference.
>
> Thoughts and comments?
>
> Jeff
>
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Erik Daughtrey <er...@schemacity.org>.
I may have phrased the original issue badly. The installer has both Jetty and
Tomcat as options to install on the main pack selection page. It was decided
that because of the complexity of installing two web containers that we
should not install both, but allow the operator to select one or the other.
In M5, the installer actually allowed both containers to be configured, but
did not have a way to validate the ports selected. When configured correctly
with no conflicting ports, both containers will start. There's some
goofiness with offlineDeployer and runtimeDeployer since one of the
containers will win the config.xml entries if more than one is selected --
looks like Tomcat wins.
For 1.0, both containers will be listed on the first selection screen.
However, it didn't make sense to default both to install when the plan was to
only allow one.
Allowing both requires the installer to validate the ports and ensure that the
operator does not configure both containers to the same port. This problem
exists for other port types as well, but is less likely to be a problem.
IzPack does not support this inter-panel validation easily i.e. through normal
XML based configuration. It requires that java code be built to extend the
user input panels.
On the other hand, limiting the operator to one web container is no panacea
either. To effectively do this, I have configured the XML to set Jetty as
the default to install (Tomcat can be selected) since it's confusing to do
otherwise in this scenario (although the default could just as easily be
Tomcat and it looks like the vote is going that way). This effectively
starts down a good path for this scenario, but the operator can easily select
both containers again. To stop this, I will extend a userinput panel to be
invoked to check that both are selected and not allow the install to proceed
past the first userinput screen -- the first screen after the major component
selection. This again requires java code since IzPack does not have a
parameter to apply to packs such as "exclusiveOf( packName )". This is
interesting since it does have "depends( packname )" which allows us to
require the Tomcat container when installing the Tomcat console, etc.
This may be more than everyone wants to know, but to answer your question, I
don't see any particular reason why the installer cannot allow installation
of both. However, it's very late in the 1.0 cycle and the current design is
that we'd allow one or the other, but not both.
I have no particular preference myself.
On Thursday 08 December 2005 18:30, Jeff Genender wrote:
> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and user
> community we are not forced to have to show preference of one over the
> other. There is obviously some personal preferences on both sides and
> we are a great open source project because we do not have to get behind
> one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>
> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called "Choose
> Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and Tomcat, but neither
> selected? Does there need to be a default? Can we just let the end
> user choose?
>
> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
> other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the choice
> without hinting a preference.
>
> Thoughts and comments?
>
> Jeff
--
Regards,
Erik
Re: Does there need to be a default web container?
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
I'd also prefer the choice too be left to the user
+1
-bd-
On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> This is obviously a hot topic and I hope that as a Geronimo PMC and
> user community we are not forced to have to show preference of one
> over the other. There is obviously some personal preferences on
> both sides and we are a great open source project because we do not
> have to get behind one *or* the other. We can get behind them both.
>
> May I ask why the installer/wizard cannot have a page called
> "Choose Your Web Container" and have an option for Jetty and
> Tomcat, but neither selected? Does there need to be a default?
> Can we just let the end user choose?
>
> IMHO, I don't think we should provide a preference for one over the
> other. I really like both. I think we should give the user the
> choice without hinting a preference.
>
> Thoughts and comments?
>
> Jeff